Los Angeles Police Union Decides Maybe It’s Better If Cops Aren’t Asked To Be First Responders

from the kind-of-refreshing-tbh dept

For the most part, police unions are a net negative for both the police and the policed. They tend to excuse the worst behavior of their members while showing genuine disdain for anyone who dares to question an officer’s actions. Police unions have actively contributed to the mess US policing is and not a single one has stepped up to acknowledge the harm caused to the communities these agencies are supposed to be serving.

That’s why this news is so surprising. It’s not that it’s a crazy idea unlikely to receive community support. It’s that it’s a good idea and one that’s likely to result in fewer incidents where cops squander good will by acting like, well, cops.

The Los Angeles Police Protective League, the superhero-esque moniker the union representing the LAPD has bestowed upon itself, has finally acknowledged cops aren’t always the best option in certain emergencies — especially those that don’t involve criminal activity. Craig Lally, the union’s president, has released a list of calls the union believes would be better served by unarmed first responders. (It’s worth pointing out “unarmed” is a direct quote of Lally, which makes this statement somewhat of an admission that armed officers tend to view violence as the best response to far too many service calls.)

Here’s the full list, as published by news station KTLA:

1. Non-criminal and/or non-violent homeless and quality of life-related calls;
2. Non-criminal mental health calls;
3. Non-violent juvenile disturbance or juveniles beyond parental control calls; (won’t go to school);
4. Calls to schools unless the school administration is initiating a call for an emergency police response or making a mandatory reporting notification;
5. Public Health Order violations;
6. Non-violent calls for service at City parks;
7. Under the influence calls (alcohol and/or drugs) where there is no other crime in progress;
8. Welfare Check – WELCK;
• Non-Criminal;
• Courtesy request from Drs/Hospitals;
9. Non-Fatal Vehicle Accidents – 1181/1182/1183/1179;
• Non-DUI/Non-Criminal; Property damage only (including City property), Verbal disputes involving non-injury traffic collisions, refusing to share ID at traffic collisions;
10. Parking violations;
11. Driveway tow;
12. Abandoned vehicles;
13. Person dumping trash;
14. Vicious and dangerous dog complaints where no attack is in progress;
15. Calls for service for loud noise, loud music, or ‘party’ calls that are anonymous or have no victim;
16. Landlord/Tenant Disputes;
17. Loitering/Trespassing With No Indication Of Danger;
18. Code 30 Alarm Response (except 211 silent alarm);
19. Syringe Disposal;
20. DOT Stand-By;
21. Homeless Encampment Clean-Ups, unless officers are requested or prescheduled;
22. Panhandling;
23. Illegal Vending;
24. Illegal Gambling;
25. Fireworks;
26. Defecating/Urinating In Public;
27. Drinking in Public;
28. Suspicious circs-possible dead body, where no indication of foul play

Every call not handled by a cop is a call where the odds of a person in need of assistance surviving the interaction increase. Cops are not trained to handle many of these situations. Their training tends to focus on force deployment, compliance techniques, and other things meant to mitigate the dangers of the job.

When asked to handle situations where training has been insufficient, things tend to go poorly for those on the receiving end of the police response. Many of these situations would be better handled by mental health professionals, medical personnel, or social workers who are specifically trained to address these issues.

As for the rest — the minor infractions that don’t demand immediate armed response — officers tasked with handling non-violent misdemeanors (more meter reader than beat cop) or code enforcement employees can take the lead, engaging in enforcement without unneeded use of force.

It’s not a new idea. Other large cities have experimented with routing calls like these to trained professionals who aren’t armed officers. And, so far, the outcomes have been very positive. Fewer unnecessary arrests have been made. More confrontations have been avoided. People have received help rather than citations and agitation. And, most importantly, more people are coming out of these situations without injuries, bullet holes, or bullshit “contempt of cop” charges.

There’s no set start date for the rerouting proposed by the union. Union reps says details are still being finalized, including protocols for police response should initial responders encounter dangerous situations. But this is the union backing this, which means its members — the LAPD rank-and-file — are either on board with the change, or unlikely to go into “slow down” mode once this rolls out.

You won’t often see me agreeing with a police union. But I’m as surprised as anyone by this proposal and its origins. And it’s worth noting because, if nothing else, it suggests unions might be realizing they have to do something to push their members into forming better relationships with the communities they serve. It’s time to give something back after taking away so much. This is a good start. Let’s hope this union’s proactive move encourages others in the nation to do the same thing.

Filed Under: , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Los Angeles Police Union Decides Maybe It’s Better If Cops Aren’t Asked To Be First Responders”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
47 Comments

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re:

So, sounds like the LAPD union has signed onto defund the police. I’m surprised the column didn’t mention that this is essential the the defund movement was pushing for. This will make some of my conservative’s head a’splode.

These calls will still be answered by the police (first responders) but they will be unarmed first responders.

mick says:

Re: Re:

These calls will still be answered by the police

It’s very likely that most of them won’t be. Many of these are homeless-related, or drunken-asshole-related.

In Vegas (the city, not the Strip) these types of calls are answered by a non-profit who works closely with police, but the cops are only called in if there’s a serious escalation of violence. The first responders only carry pepper spray.

I’m sure this is common in other cities as well, since no Vegas politician has ever had a unique idea.

Anonymous Coward says:

I wonder if the union realized that this would de-facto remove ‘law enforcement’ from police (since a law of that list is just ‘non-violent law breakage’). The PD would turn a bit closer to being “thugs for hire” for an actual law enforcement body.

Anyhow, I am surprised as Tim about this coming from a Union. I wonder if they actually have someone trying to look a reality objectively, or if this was some sort of horrible(from their perspective, not ours) internal mistake.

In either case, this should be a vast improvement for that area.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re:

A fully-armed cop has never PREVENTED a crime. Most cops barely even SOLVE crime.

Cops deter crime. When crime spikes in an area they add more patrols and crime goes down often without any additional arrests. I assume these unarmed cops would still be in uniform and patrolling in patrol cars when not answering one of the 28 calls listed.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

Whatever does the trick

Whether it’s entirely self-serving in some way or an honest realization that maybe sending people armed and taught that violence makes a great solution to many of the problems they might encounter isn’t the best option so long as the result is less people hospitalized, arrested and/or killed it sure sounds like a good if overdue change to me.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
James Burkhardt (profile) says:

Re:

“Law enforcement” in the US is nominally to investigate crime, not actually prevent it. This is what we want the police to do. When placed in an active crime situation, they lean heavily into the ‘force’ part of ‘enforcement’, because culture and training teach US cops to escalate situations and rule via fear. Their priority objective is looking out for themselves. Literally. We have video of police training and department captains telling trainees and officers that their goal is getting home alive, like they are civilians in the middle of a war zone and didn’t choose the profession. It should be noted american law enforcement was born out of a fusion of former slave catchers and prohibition enforcement, and the people in those professions weren’t known for being upstanding individuals.

That said, perhaps in Israel police training is different.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Koby (profile) says:

Re: Re:

If you remove police from this entire list what’s left? Just a SWAT unit?

The cavalry. It will be close to a SWAT team paradigm, and similar to the old good-cop-bad-cop routine. The good cop will be a bureaucrat, social worker, paramedic, or somesuch needed to handle the situation at hand. If for whatever reason things don’t go according to plan, then they call in the bad cop. It turns out that Officer BeefSupreme was 30 seconds away in his patrol car, ready to swoop in and make an arrest. Basically it’s going to be the security detail for the government, and everyone else is going to be left to fend for themselves.

I’m not saying that I agree with this model. I’m just saying that it’s how police will react given the circumstances. If the police face a legal liability for engaging in enforcement, then they’ll outsource the liability to the city workers.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Hopefully, the list will grow.

Every call not handled by a cop is a call where the odds of a person in need of assistance surviving the interaction increase. Cops are not trained to handle many of these situations.

Cops are trained to handle these calls and they will be answering them. If I read it right, the difference is these calls will be handled by unarmed cops. Some of these calls will result in citations which requires sworn officers.

As someone who is pro-cop, I see this as a definite step forward. Currently one of the stresses of being an officer is that every call you go on there is a gun involved because you’re bringing it. If this works out, I imagine cities will need far fewer armed police and officers will spend much of their careers unarmed. Hopefully, the list will grow.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re:

You only see it that way now because a cop suggested this idea. If literally anyone else who isn’t a cop had suggested it, you likely would’ve whined about how they were trying to have your son killed or some shit.

And I suppose you are against it because the police union is for it.

I don’t interpret it the same way Cushing presented it. I read it that these calls will still be answered by the police, but these would be unarmed police. This scenario would solve a lot of issues.

You would still have police officers (both armed and unarmed) in patrol cars serving as a crime deterrent.

Officers could spend much of, if not all their careers unarmed.

Officers would have a history of how they deal with the public long before they are issued a weapon.

Altruistic officers who want a role similar to those in the Denver Star program could have wages, a career and the retirement of police officers.

Officers could be rotated from armed to unarmed if they start showing signs of stress.

If it solves the recruitment problem, it will be economically beneficial because cops are working way too much overtime.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I suppose you are against it because the police union is for it.

No, I support the idea. But the fact that a police union suggested the idea makes me wary of supporting its version of the idea regardless of how nice it looks on paper. Police departments haven’t exactly jumped on the idea of turning non-violent calls over to other first responders. That would mean routing funds from the cops⁠—i.e., “defunding the police”⁠—to those other first responders. And police departments, like many other long-standing institutions, are slow to implement and accept institutional change. So yes, a police union jumping on board now with what was a good idea before the union jumped on board looks suspicious as fuck to me.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

No, I support the idea. But the fact that a police union suggested the idea makes me wary of supporting its version of the idea regardless of how nice it looks on paper. Police departments haven’t exactly jumped on the idea of turning non-violent calls over to other first responders. That would mean routing funds from the cops⁠—i.e., “defunding the police”⁠—to those other first responders. And police departments, like many other long-standing institutions, are slow to implement and accept institutional change. So yes, a police union jumping on board now with what was a good idea before the union jumped on board looks suspicious as fuck to me.

I’m not sure you are getting this, because if you think about it, it makes perfect sense why the unions would support it. You are not defunding the police, and you are not handing these tasks off to anyone else. You are disarming some police or hiring and training unarmed police to do these tasks. This means more union members.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

if you think about it, it makes perfect sense why the unions would support it

Actually, based on prior union experience, it makes very little sense why the unions would support it now, given their prior stances on the matter. It makes very little sense why you would support it, because your standard reply against reducing the number of armed cops on the street has always been “Look, the US policing situation is different from the rest of the world, every civilian is armed to the teeth, so we have to treat every encounter as a possible escalation.”

you are not handing these tasks off to anyone else

Hasn’t part of your complaints been the fact that cops are expected to do everything? Now suddenly not handing non-police tasks is a good thing?

This means more union members.

I find that rather difficult to believe when half your diatribes has been bitching about how difficult it is to find people willing to sign up as police members.

davec, I reiterate: people read your post history. Your claims here aren’t been taken seriously, because you’ve consistently and persistently believed anyone who isn’t a cop is barely less than human.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:3

This means more union members.

Therein lies the problem: You think everyone who has to answer these calls must be a cop. But given all the issues that plague policing in the U.S., putting more cops on the street⁠—even if they’re unarmed⁠—isn’t exactly a solution everyone is going to be on board with.

Like, fuck, man, why can’t you support the idea of sending trained mental health professionals to a mental health emergency without needing to slap them in a police uniform? Are you really so pro-cop that you think issues that don’t even require police still somehow require more police to be thrown at those issues as a solution?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Are you really so pro-cop that you think issues that don’t even require police still somehow require more police to be thrown at those issues as a solution?

So long as davec’s son isn’t one of those being thrown at the problem, he’s perfectly fine with more cops being a thing – except, of course, there’s also his ongoing narrative that nobody wants to be a cop because he thinks cops will be sued into the ground if someone so much as looks in their general direction.

davec (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Like, fuck, man, why can’t you support the idea of sending trained mental health professionals to a mental health emergency without needing to slap them in a police uniform? Are you really so pro-cop that you think issues that don’t even require police still somehow require more police to be thrown at those issues as a solution?

I do support sending trained mental health professionals and stated so in a previous reply that was hidden by one of the numerous “Anonymous Cowards” in here. Those trained unarmed first responders are still going to be cops, at least per the union’s proposal.

“Altruistic officers who want a role similar to those in the Denver Star program could have wages, a career and the retirement of police officers”.

Chris Mouse (profile) says:

The LAPPL may end up regretting this at some point.

The list of duties the police would rather hand off to someone else is a long one. For the most part, I agree they shouldn’t be the first people responding to these calls.

On the other hand, once the police are no longer responding to these ‘distractions’ from ‘real’ police work, there are going to be awkward questions asked if there isn’t a matching increase in solved crimes.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

davec (profile) says:

Re:

The list of duties the police would rather hand off to someone else is a long one. For the most part, I agree they shouldn’t be the first people responding to these calls.

On the other hand, once the police are no longer responding to these ‘distractions’ from ‘real’ police work, there are going to be awkward questions asked if there isn’t a matching increase in solved crimes.

I read the proposal differently. These calls will still be handled by the police, but the police that handle them would be unarmed. Some of these calls could result in citations which still requires sworn officers. Seattle had a problem with handing off towing and parking to non-sworn officers and the ended up having to reimburse the people cited.

Also I think the beauty in this is that these unarmed officers would still patrol in patrol cars and serve as a deterrent.

Leave a Reply to alan Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Ctrl-Alt-Speech

A weekly news podcast from
Mike Masnick & Ben Whitelaw

Subscribe now to Ctrl-Alt-Speech »
Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...